[Vision2020] Beating dead horses

[Tom Hansen]

Sunil -

I am puzzled a little, honestly, by your comments.

Are you addressing "ALL [my emphasis] military age males in a strike zone" or just those that are US citizens (as suggested by your opening sentence)?

If the former, I will have more to say.  If the latter, I kinda (in spirit) agree with you.

Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"If not us, who?
If not now, when?"

- Unknown



On May 30, 2012, at 6:03, Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Chuck (or is it Chick?)
> 
> I'm looking for the section in the Constitution that says the President, on his own say so, can kill US citizens, without due process. Where is it?
> 
> Here's Greenwald on this issue, yesterday:
> 
> http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/obama_the_warrior/singleton/
> 
> Here's something to be proud of: "Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent." (From this other Greenwald article yesterday: http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/singleton/ )
> 
> Yep, if we killed them, they must have been militants, unless someone proves otherwise, after they're dead. Of course, when we send drones back to kill rescuers and mourners, it may be hard to prove the innocence of the murder victims. And we should believe the state, because Obama's president, right? If he says it, it must be true? How many Obama supporters took the same position when Bush was president?
> 
> How can we 'eliminate al Quaeda' when every time we blow up people, we help them recruit?
> 
> Sunil
> 
> Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 16:59:39 -0700
> From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> To: ckovis at turbonet.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Beating dead horses
> 
> Mr. Kovis,
>  
> It concerns me that you don't know the difference between an opinion piece and an article strictly written with
> empirical facts backed by several sources for accuracy. One is subjective, and the other is objective.
>  
> You can post 100s of opinion pieces by anti-war, anti-Obama, or anti-current US policy writers, it doesn't substantiate your claims that Obama is targeting innocent civilians.
>  
> "When he applies his lawyering skills to counterterrorism, it is usually to enable, not constrain, his ferocious campaign against Al Qaeda - even when it comes to killing an American cleric in Yemen, a decision that Mr. Obama told colleagues was "an easy one."
>  
> This is not the full truth, which makes it a lie. If you read the article which the opinion writer is referring to, you would see that Obama has only targeted 15 Yemen with American ties, all plotting an attack on American soil. It doesn't matter if someone is a cleric from Mukalla, Yemen, or Moscow, Russia, or Moscow, Idaho, if they are plotting to kill Americans in the United States or elsewhere, I say more power to the President to bring a drone plane down on their head.
>  
> It appears to me, you reject any policy the US has of eliminating Al Qaeda, an organization that plotted, funded, and executed 3,000 American civilians, including children, and would do it again given a chance.
>  
> Donovan J. Arnold
>  
>  
> 
> From: Chuck Kovis <ckovis at turbonet.com>
> To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> 
> Cc: "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 4:32 PM
> Subject: Beating dead horses
> 
> From the New York Times via Reader Supported News:
> "In interviews with The New York Times, three dozen of his current and former advisers described Mr. Obama's evolution since taking on the role, without precedent in presidential history, of personally overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda.  They describe a paradoxical leader who shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing. While he was adamant about narrowing the fight and improving relations with the Muslim world, he has followed the metastasizing enemy into new and dangerous lands. When he applies his lawyering skills to counterterrorism, it is usually to enable, not constrain, his ferocious campaign against Al Qaeda - even when it comes to killing an American cleric in Yemen, a decision that Mr. Obama told colleagues was "an easy one."  "  (My emphasis)
> I opposed Democrat Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War.  I oppose Democrat Barack Obama and the Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Iran Wars.  When you have a constitutional law professor saying that it is "an easy one" to kill a fellow U.S. citizen without what passes now days for "due process,"  don't expect me to go along with it.  I find it disgusting that more people in this country don't have the guts to put a stop to this at the ballot box.  As a country, we will never learn, when  a former SDS'er is an apologist for a President who says the decision to kill a fellow human being and fellow American citizen is easy.         Chuck Kovis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ======================================================= List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com =======================================================
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120530/e68ee40c/attachment.html>